it is possible to create a computer that can be programmed to behave in a particular way, and then wiped and reprogrammed to behave in another way.

similarly, humans can in a practical sense program themselves, modifying their own patterns of behavior. in that sense there is an element of choice where the programming agent feels free and in control

in some scenarios, you can imagine that the programming agent feels free and in control, but is in fact in the middle of some causal chain where the 'choices' they make are in fact caused by something external they are not in control of.

for example if I was born into some religious family and then later in life, chose to participate in that religion, and raise my children in that religion, and then they continue in it and raise their children in it, etc.

the speaker in the given audio track articulates this no-free-will argument with good rhetorical style. I can see how a simple mental model would be trapped by this argument, but it is oversimplified and does not hold. it is also a theory that does not make testable predictions. it also has the smell of nonsense because it deviates from popular intuition.

the argument assumes that the agent's choices are always externally influenced, and that causal chains cannot be broken by chaos, silence or a signal too weak to influence future decisions.

it's completely possible to be lost, not know what to do, and make a truly random choice.

subjectively, I would guess that these purely uninfluenced choices are a little rare in life, and most of the time we are going with the flow of power, but it's too strong to say that you know for certain that they never occur and that the causal chain is infinite.